I despair - RAAus Chair Michael Monck doesn't support changing the Act

[Dick Smith]

In an article in the September/October 2018 issue of Australian Flying headed “Monck on changing the Act” it states that he is not supporting my proposed change to the Act.

That is, the change to remove the “lie” in the Act’s wording that "CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration." (By the way, the September/October 2018 issue of Australian Flying is of the best issues that has ever come out – it would have taken a lot of hard work. Congratulations to everyone involved.)

Michael says: “… I think by making the Act dual purpose, I think we are opening ourselves up to trouble like we saw in the US…”In fact removing the lie doesn’t make the act dual purpose. It simply means that it tells the truth. That is, in many cases cost is the limiting factor, not safety.

Yes, the FAA had the words "foster and promote aviation" and the bureaucrats used that to claim that the reason an airline crashed is that they were fostering and promoting someone that was not safe. What a con.

The agreement I had with Anthony Albanese and Barnaby Joyce was really simple. It made it clear that no longer could the CASA bureaucracy hide behind the lie that safety is the most important consideration.

I could understand RA-Aus wanting to keep CASA on side at the present time. However even if I were one of the many at CASA that wanted to fix some of the problems, I would be supporting the change of the Act to tell the truth.

It is interesting that when I was Chairman of both CAA and CASA, some of the most important changes I tried to bring in to reduce costs were actually opposed by those in the industry who thought they benefited by keeping CASA bureaucrats on side. I tried to explain to these people that by actually reducing costs and getting more people flying that the industry would be able to boom again and everyone would benefit. Unfortunately I didn’t succeed.

[MKF]

Dick, do you think theyre worried that by rocking the boat they might find themselves with more scrutiny from CASA and ATSB? From my limited understanding of the way it works for RAAus, I can certainly see the appeal of avoiding more of CASAs red tape - a lot of RAAus planes don't have enough useful load to carry the requisite paperwork.

[Xeptu]

I'm not sure where you're coming from here Dick. Safety "is" the first priority. That said, it is and always has been "safety at a price" we will never remove human frailty and so accidents will continue to occur. It comes down to we either do or we do not do, That involves risk assessment and management. The key is to identify what can be done with a higher degree of safety without incurring cost. Sadly identifying those things, usually come about as a result of an event.

[Dick Smith]

Xeptu, if ‘safety “is” the first priority’, why has CASA decided that the tower at Wagga does not have to be manned by air traffic controllers? Surely if safety was the first priority the tower would be manned. I bet the only reason it isn’t manned is that cost in this situation is the first priority. That is, the cost would affect the viability of operations at Wagga.

What do you think?

[Xeptu]

Almost certainly a correct statement, cost would be the decider, does wagga justify the cost of a manned tower.

[thorn bird]

I can't help thinking that there is not a shred of evidence that the tens of thousands of pages
of Australian regulations have had the slightest impact on improved safety.
There is however ample evidence that the tens of thousands of pages of regulations has
had a major impact on the costs associated with committing aviation in Australia and
therefore the viability of the very industry the regulations are purported to regulate.
Balance between safety and cost, has not been very well managed in Australia, in fact it has
been an unmitigated disaster as clearly illustrated by the continued decline in participation.
Being the big "R" regulator has demonstrably failed as an approach to lifting safety standards.
It has been very effective in the decline of the industry along with all the rest of the perfect
storm of costly impositions imposed by various Government thought bubbles over the past
twenty years or so.
They may have seemed a good idea at the time, and done with good intentions, but failed
miserably to foresee how vested interest could subvert the original intent in pursuit of the Holy Dollar.
Much like the guy in his tinny at the weekend GA is in part a hobby for many people, it also has
aspects of commercial enterprise, small businesses by and large, that provide essential services to the
community as a whole. The tragedy for GA is that politically there is no recognition of its value nor its
contribution to the nation, nor its potential if it were allowed to grow.
There was an interesting article in the "Weekend Australian" how over only a few months Australia's
space regulations had been completely reformed, removing much of the red tape that stifled its
development and how this opened the door to investment in the space industry and the benefits
that investment could bring.
Yet here GA sits after thirty years and hundreds of millions of dollars pissed up against the wall, stifled,
in rapid decline, an industry that could very easily, given the political will, rival space in its contribution
to the national economy.
The Americans have a vibrant, growing GA industry, they also have the safest. Why don't we swallow
our pride admit to ourselves we screwed up and copy the best.

[Dick Smith]

So clearly CASA does not comply with the act in regards to Wagga.

If safety was was the most important consideration they would require the tower be manned.

The only reason safety is not is not the most important consideration in this case is they have decided that cost is even more important.

[Xeptu]

No it doesn't mean that at all Dick. The towers primary function is surface movement control, not so much airborne control. In order to justify a manned tower factors such as, number of simultaneous movements, how congested the movement area is, surface visibility to name a few, if those issues are no longer present then there is no need for a manned tower. Now I don't know if that's the case in wagga or not, but we can't simply say because you have taken it away it's less safe.

[E&H]

"but we can't simply say because you have taken it away it's less safe." Mmmm, if thats how it works then it seems to me you could reverse the whole argument about safety and say that just because CASA are over regulating the s&*t out of everything doesn't mean it's more safe...just means it's over regulated. In fact the amount of over regulation is kind of a sadistic "work of art", so convoluted, with regulation upon regulation, masses of manuals, that nobody will ever be able to fully grasp...

[CaptainMidnight]

The last aeronautical study of Wagga I recall indicated that the level of traffic did not justify any change to the airspace classification or level of ATS provided.

Typically aeronautical studies state their assessments include:
...the reviewed safety and incident data, consultation with stakeholders and reviewing of annual aircraft and passenger movement statistics.
And the CASA ARASMM:
The ARASMM translates the obligations of the Act, the Regulations and AAPS into activities that CASA will conduct, in order to satisfy those obligations of:

. determining whether the current airspace classifications, in accordance with ICAO Annex 11 - Air Traffic Services, are appropriate
. determining whether the types of services and facilities provided by air navigation service providers in relation to particular volumes of airspace are appropriate
. identifying risk factors to determine whether there is safe, secure and efficient use of that airspace and equitable access for all users.

Which suggests safety is the CASA prime consideration in determining airspace classification and level of ATS, and the traffic @ WG doesn't currently justify a CA/GRS or ATC service .......

[Sunfish]

so is RAA just a "mini me" version of CASA?

[cattletruck]

Given the copious amounts of legislation and necessary compliance faced by GA, if money was not an option in the pursuit of our regulator's ultimate safety goals, then to legally satisfy all parties of concern and mitigate any liabilities, our take-off clearances should be issued by the federal courts. Just lodge your flight plan 3 to 6 months in advance.

[Sunfish]

agree with cattletruck.

[Lead Balloon]

The last aeronautical study of Wagga I recall indicated that the level of traffic did not justify any change to the airspace classification or level of ATS provided.

Typically aeronautical studies state their assessments include:

And the CASA ARASMM:


Which suggests safety is the CASA prime consideration in determining airspace classification and level of ATS, and the traffic @ WG doesn't currently justify a CA/GRS or ATC service .......But Captain: There must still be a risk - no matter how remote - of collision in the airspace around Wagga, which risk would be mitigated - no matter how marginally - by manning the Tower at Wagga. Somebody must have decided that the lives that could be lost in a collision in the vicinity of Wagga, the risks of which are highly improbable but would nonetheless be reduced by a manned Tower, aren’t worth the cost of a manned Tower. What price do these CASA determination processes put on a human life?

[CaptainMidnight]

Somebody must have decided that the lives that could be lost in a collision in the vicinity of Wagga, the risks of which are highly improbable but would nonetheless be reduced by a manned Tower, aren’t worth the cost of a manned Tower.to the operators and industry.

Someone coined the phrase Affordable Safety .....

https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/306792-merged-affordable-safety-unaffordable-accident.html

[Horatio Leafblower]

Someone coined the phrase Affordable Safety .....

....and someone else coined the phrase "As low as reasonably practical" as the standard for Risk Management, which is saying exactly the same thing.
I don't see much hysteria around here about ALARP, but mention "affordable safety" or Dick Smith and everyone loses their ****.

[LeadSled]

....and someone else coined the phrase "As low as reasonably practical" as the standard for Risk Management, which is saying exactly the same thing.
I don't see much hysteria around here about ALARP, but mention "affordable safety" or Dick Smith and everyone loses their ****.

Horation,
Well put.
The knee jerk reaction to almost anything Dick says is pathetic, particularly when it comes from those in the aviation sector.
Dick would be one of very few who have had/have absolutely nothing to gain, personally or financially, from beneficial (as opposed to disastrous and costly) aviation reform.
Tootle pip!!

[aroa]

Let me just get my head around this perplexing problem....
To man the tower at Wagga2 is unaffordable due to insufficient traffic. (not surprising in the fall off in GA and Pvt ops)
A mid air collision under those conditions is.. an accident due unaffordability.? Unavoidability more like.
Someone didnt see someone else
The tower is manned. There is a mid air collision ( as has happened at other towered,manned airports) is this an accident of affordability.? Someone didnt see someone else
Doesnt really make much difference to the victims either way.
A safety issue is not made safer by hurling big heaps of money at it
While most mid-airs occur around airports, some/many years ago the stats then said there was , on the basis of operational hours flown and the number of a/c in Oz, (then when GA was healthy)...the possibility of a collision once every 600 years. Now it must be about 700 years
Most fields around the country dont have towers, and it all seems to work pretty well that way.
Just make sure its not your year! Look, listen, see and separate.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
It is interesting to include the views of a certain pilot's union, who insist that not only must the slightest demonstrated risk be mitigated, but CASA must deal with "perceptions of risk", even if there is no demonstrated or identified real risk.

This is, to my mind, the classic example of Lead Balloon's "cognitive bias" , where air safety risk's likelihood and consequences is vastly overstated, in this case to the degree that alleged risks that cannot be illustrated, that are admitted to be "perceptions of risk", must nevertheless be formally mitigated.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Needless to say, this union does NOT support benefit/cost justification of any aviation regulation, which undoubtedly makes the present Minister very happy.

[Clare Prop]

I remember when Airservices decided to cut ATC numbers and close Jandakot Tower at 6pm and put in a CA/GRO. Not long after, someone landed on top of someone else.

[LeadSled]

I remember when Airservices decided to cut ATC numbers and close Jandakot Tower at 6pm and put in a CA/GRO. Not long after, someone landed on top of someone else.

And I remember that all the mid-airs over/in the vicinity of Bankstown have been with ATC in operation, so what does that prove.

If you understand the inglorious history of the so called CAGRO, you will understand that it was a rejection of the idea of a Unicom, common and proven elsewhere in the world, and a way of creating jobs for retired/redundant ATC/FSO perX.

And why was it rejected --- in part because of the attitude of the union alluded to above, to quote their then "Technical Director", more or less verbatim: "I don't care if it is fXXX safer in the US, we are not going to do what the fXXX septics do". In part because CASA was "culturally" opposed, the anti-FAA "culture".

And mostly because the use of Unicom was proposed by Dick Smith.

Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Hamspter wheel... back on-thread please, or let it die.

[LeadSled]

Hamspter wheel... back on-thread please, or let it die.

Touched a sore spot, have I , Bloggsie??
Tootle pip!!

[Clare Prop]

I'm pretty sure that runway collision happened about the time DS was in CASA. He was certainly there when the decision to almost halve the number of controllers was taken. What influence if any he had on this decision I don't know, perhaps he can explain.

[aroa]

If there had been a CAGRO at PJKT who issued a 'Clear to Land' and it wasnt ...who's ultimately responsible for the bingle ??
The PIC, even having been issued with a clearance, and who is is ultimately responsible to the safety of the aircraft... and has ensure that the landing path ahead IS clear, as stated by the Controller/cagro.

Having only just avoided a collision with a person on the runway, just off the keys, walking in the landing direction with a noisy putt-putt paint machine. and a dead radio in his pocket...was because I checked the threshold with abt 100yds to go. Lucky I did because there would have been more that just white paint all over the runway..!!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Back to the original thread ---- in my view it is quite spurious to equate "promote and foster" by whatever description, and the primary purpose of changing the Act.

The primary purpose of changing the Act is to force CASA to use genuine risk based analysis for proposed regulation, that result to be cost/benefit justified ---- that is, the benefits (costs savings, including the cost of lives saved using the conventional Commonwealth estimates) is greater than costs imposed on the aviation sector.

As many of you know, CASA is supposed to do that anyway, to follow the various Productivity Commission/Office of Best Practice Regulation guidelines, which is applicable to ALL Australian Government departments and instrumentalities, but CASA simply refuses to comply, based on their current interpretation of S9A of the Act.

CASA also ignores the guidelines for the classification of offences, making use of "strict liability" over a range well beyond the guidelines for regulation making.

What is so dumb about the apparent position of the management of the RAOz is that the proposed changes to the Act would be incontestably very beneficial to the 10,000 or so members of RAOz, if not to the perceived benefit of the current management.

Minimum regulation benefits the whole aviation sector.

The answer to this is in the hands of the members, the board can be voted out.

Tootle pip!!

[Clare Prop]

A CA/GRO can't issue a landing clearance.
The decision to land is always up to the Pilot in Command in any type of airspace.

[Squawk7700]

Folks,
Back to the original thread ---- in my view it is quite spurious to equate "promote and foster" by whatever description, and the primary purpose of changing the Act.

The primary purpose of changing the Act is to force CASA to use genuine risk based analysis for proposed regulation, that result to be cost/benefit justified ---- that is, the benefits (costs savings, including the cost of lives saved using the conventional Commonwealth estimates) is greater than costs imposed on the aviation sector.

As many of you know, CASA is supposed to do that anyway, to follow the various Productivity Commission/Office of Best Practice Regulation guidelines, which is applicable to ALL Australian Government departments and instrumentalities, but CASA simply refuses to comply, based on their current interpretation of S9A of the Act.

CASA also ignores the guidelines for the classification of offences, making use of "strict liability" over a range well beyond the guidelines for regulation making.

What is so dumb about the apparent position of the management of the RAOz is that the proposed changes to the Act would be incontestably very beneficial to the 10,000 or so members of RAOz, if not to the perceived benefit of the current management.

Minimum regulation benefits the whole aviation sector.

The answer to this is in the hands of the members, the board can be voted out.

Tootle pip!!

I would suggest LS that before you twist the knife too far after it has already been inserted, that you check with the Raaus to make sure that the quoted parties haven’t been incorrectly paraphrased and or quoted out of context by the reporter!

What? The media made a mistake, surely not !!!

[LeadSled]

[QUOTE=Squawk7700;10236955]I would suggest LS that before you twist the knife too far after it has already been inserted, that you check with the Raaus to make sure that the quoted parties haven’t been incorrectly paraphrased and or quoted out of context by the reporter!

What? The media made a mistake, surely not !!!
[QUOTE]

7700,
If you read my post carefully, I did say "apparent position".

On the general subject, as with most things aviation, the New Zealanders have got it right, with their Civil Aviation Act 1990.S14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Objectives of MinisterThe objectives of the Minister under this Act are—(a)to undertake the Minister’s functions in a way that contributes to the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system; and

(b)to ensure that New Zealand’s obligations under international civil aviation agreements are implemented.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I would also suggest that, re; "promote and foster" and a controversy many years ago in US, the controversy generated by the then Inspector General of Transport (or some similar name) was largely generated to promote a (her) fledgling political career, that went nowhere.
Despite claims to the contrary, nobody has ever established a real (as in proven) case that "promote and foster" ever resulted in "industry capture" of the FAA.
Occasional cases of individual inspectors getting too close to airlines/companies to which they were assigned are not "industry capture".

Tootle pip!!

[Dick Smith]

If the RAA Chairman has been misquoted surely he would leap on this site and say so!

I agree with those who say that RAA would benefit from the proposed changes to the act.

I am a member of RAA and would support the Chairman clarifying his position.

[LeadSled]

If the RAA Chairman has been misquoted surely he would leap on this site and say so!

I agree with those who say that RAA would benefit from the proposed changes to the act.

I am a member of RAA and would support the Chairman clarifying his position.

Folks,
Just to be clear, like Dick, I have been a member of RAOz back to AUF days, well over 20 years.

I have supported increased weight limits, indeed had been involved in the 488 to 544 move, and support the move to 760.

What I don't support is the idea of any RAOz registered aircraft NOT being available for owner maintenance, and do NOT support other than "drivers license" medical standard being applied to RAOz pilots. The latter are NOT progress, and such "tightening" of alleged "standards" has no basis in risk management.

Tootle pip!!

[Vag277]

LS

I am curious. Have you built an aeroplane under the ABAA or Experimental certificate system?

[LeadSled]

LS

I am curious. Have you built an aeroplane under the ABAA or Experimental certificate system?

Vag277,
And the relevance of that is??

In years gone by, I was a member of SAAA for quite a while, in ABAA days, and became quite disgusted at the way members were being subjected to a "cashectomy" under the ABAA system. And, of course, membership of SAAA was compulsory if you wanted to be an amateur builder. It was made very clear to me, in as many words, that amateur builders could not be trusted to behave in their own interests, only close and prescriptive (and expensive) supervision was acceptable, safety-wise. I can remember the lecture I got on the subject like it was yesterday.

Australia is not the USA, you know!!

None of this damned Yankee "freedom" nonsense.

I had one great benefit, I didn't start flying in Australia, I had time in UK/USA/Canada first, I knew from experience that the Australian approach to aviation in general was nonsense, to this day, far too few understand that, and apparently believe that the general Australia approach is the norm.

The one bright spot, over the years, has been the reforms in place in 1998.

In late 1996 or early 1997, the then President of SAAA presented the CEO/DAS of CASA with a draft "Experimental" category "regulation". First and foremost, it ignored the FAA equivalent entirely, and completely neglected all the other experimental categories. All it was: all the ABAA restrictions re-badged, all to be "enforced" by SAAA.

As some of you will recall, this SAAA "Experimental" was dropped like a hot brick by the Minister's Program Advisory Panel, PAP, and the CASA DAS, Leroy Keith, the policy was less regulation, and less intrusion, particularly where any risk takers assumed the risk voluntarily. Not more.

The Howard Government's approach, under Minister John Sharp, was really quite revolutionary for Australian aviation. In short, for volunteer risk takers, it was not for the Government to protect people from themselves, that is, aviation should not be treated any differently to any other sport or recreation.

And the result was: A Part 21 with LESS restrictions and MORE freedoms than the US or virtually anywhere else, and a few innovations, such as a Limiter Category far less restricted and far more useful than the US equivalent.

And, if course, big time and money savings for amateur builders, SAAA membership was no longer mandatory, expensive SAAA "inspections" of various kinds, all for substantial fees, were no longer mandatory, and you could build whatever you liked, no longer being restricted to "approved" (or whatever the term was) designs.

And bottom line: Contrary to the "expectations" of the "experts", one thing happened, one didn't.

Builder numbers boomed, and:

Bodies raining from the sky, along with bits of aeroplane, didn't.

The 19- (Experimental) register for AUF/RAOz became the foundation of an expansion of a size that nobody, including me, predicted.

Tootle pip!!

[Squawk7700]

Vag277,
And the relevance of that is??

Why not just answer with “no?”

It is entirely relevant your honour. Those who have been through the system themselves would truly understand. If you haven’t, and you listen to people like Sunfish, you don’t really have a valid reason for your opinion.

[Vag277]

LS
Interesting. I have built and flown 2 aircraft, one under each system. My experiences do not match your perceptions. I. have also been a volunteer Tech Counsellor providing support to other builders and have encountered some whose ego substantially exceeded their knowledge and abilities resulting in potentially lethal errors in their build. Oversight/support is important.

[LeadSled]

LS
Interesting. I have built and flown 2 aircraft, one under each system. My experiences do not match your perceptions. I. have also been a volunteer Tech Counsellor providing support to other builders and have encountered some whose ego substantially exceeded their knowledge and abilities resulting in potentially lethal errors in their build. Oversight/support is important.


Vag277,
Sad attitude, Australian can't be trusted, must have oversight and support ---- should be mandatory, of course, in the view of the providers of such "services"??

The "Nanny State" must prevail??

What do you think makes "Australians" so different to citizens of the US???, Said US citizens manage quite well to voluntarily seek whatever assistance they feel they might need, and provided so well by EAA ( of which I have also been a member for many years).

Tootle pip!!

PS: It is NOT my "perception". I have been very close to this issue for a long time now, 25+ years.

[Vag277]

A few facts:
Membership of SAAA has never been mandatory.
The charges levied by SAAA have always been to recover the costs incurred in exercising delegations or approvals issued by CASA.
Most builders do seek advice and assistance but not always.

My grounds for these views are:
45 year membership of ULAA/SAAA
2 aircraft designs taken through the previous ABAA process for ABAA to be issued, before the advent of EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR BUILT category and
as previously noted, two aircraft built & flown - one under each system.

What have you done in this field, other than criticise?

[LeadSled]

Vag277,
Re. membership, pre 1998 and ABAA, check your facts.

Yes, I am criticising SAAA, with bleeding good reason, but you see things through a "traditional Australian" lens.

What you and your cohort never answer is the question:

Why should Australian builders not have the same freedoms as their US peers??

At least have a go at answering it!!

Why are you so afraid of answering this question, what is it about freedom that so worries you, frightens you, that you will (and have here) come down on the side of restriction and supervision. And generally this attitude is pretty selective, it only applies to aviation, or do you believe supervision should be applied to any voluntary activities that can be lethal.

What have I done: Played a major role in dumping the SAAA proposal for an "Experimental" category in 1996, and putting in place CASR Part 21, with the US freedoms and more, which the SAAA has tried to undermine for years, by reimposing various "mandatory" processes. And thereby reimpose a rent seeking cash flow.

Tootle pip!!

[Icarus2001]

Of course RAAus want CASA to continue over regulating GA. The more hoops and hurdles CASA put in the way of an aspiring pilot, the more of them will join RAAus. So it suits them for CASA and the Act to remain as is.